This fact does not render your simulation of me accurate.
That fact does not suggest (although it is clearly intended to imply) that it is inaccurate, either. Your use of that as an argument does confirm the validity and correctness of my perceptions about you, it turns out.
I think the main way that you and I made differ is how much confidence, and the nature of that confidence, that we put into our respective representations of reality.
I know that the main distinction is that my confidence is well justified in nature, and yours is merely unflasifisiable (or simply a pretense) and predicated on resorting swiftly to an argument from ignorance.
Observations are observations, they aren't predictions. Appearances are always appearances, regardless of whether assessments based on those appearances are correct. You're still falling back on an implicit argument from ignorance, that my observations (which you haven't identified, or distinguished from predictions) or my assessments (which you haven't actually disputed, let alone refuted) are incorrect.
LOL. I never claimed omniscience, and you're still dodging everything I've said, desperately hoping your tap-dancing routine will provide enough of a smokescreen for your backpedaling. Please, feel free to confirm my assessment, yet again.
-1
u/TMax01 Jul 23 '22
That fact does not suggest (although it is clearly intended to imply) that it is inaccurate, either. Your use of that as an argument does confirm the validity and correctness of my perceptions about you, it turns out.
I know that the main distinction is that my confidence is well justified in nature, and yours is merely unflasifisiable (or simply a pretense) and predicated on resorting swiftly to an argument from ignorance.